Perhaps because your style was "in-style" when you hit the scene - even cutting edge for its time - but isn't what is considered to be the "current" style now. You've just stayed consistent while also managing to grow as an artist.

I had the pleasure of visiting a comic book shop months ago that had a John Byrne section, and I was just as excited to find the second part of that Marvel Premiere Ant-Man story as I was to see the first issue of Devils in the Desert.

Art is subjective, people respond to it at a gut level. I don't think anyone could argue that you're not a technically proficient artist. So, it comes down to a purely subjective call. Instead of acknowledging simply that ("I don't like it, but hey, that's just me"), they have to come up with derogatory terms in an attempt to justify their douchebaggerous gospel.

Unless it's the reverse, there is an episode of M*A*S*H where Radar is reading a copy of the Avengers during the Korean War.

Strange suddenly, just for one panel, had the exact same face as Sean Penn!

..........................

This has been going on for some time.  The first time I ran into it was when I was in college and picked up the Wolverine Havoc mini-series.  When unmasked, Alex looked just like James Dean!

Some things are timeless not dated. JB's art falls into the category of timeless.  

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Quesada never was and never will be on the same level as JB, Perez, John Buscema, Kane, JR.sr/jr,Sienkiewicz, Simonson, Andru, or even lesser known artists like Kerry Gammill, Brent Anderson, the list goes on.

What is he basing the "Social Darwinism" on?  Selling fewer issues?  I know the argument is we are in a different climate and titles don't sell the same numbers as they did 20-30 years ago, but the fact is when the creators he is referring to were on the high profile titles...the titles sold a hell of a lot better.

If a classic creative team got a high profile title and was givin a chance to let it develop, I can't help but think that sales would improve.  When a "classic" creative team is givin a title it seems to be second or third tier character.  I actually can't think of any teams that have been given a title lately, but I may be wrong.  What I've seen is a classic artist with a new writer or vice versa.

Quesada's "Social Darwinism" is an arbitrary term, it's spin.  If sales had been rising or even steady I might buy it, but they are in decline and have been for a long time.  The big 2 have had to resort to events, stunts, deaths, and "coming outs".  These are stop gap cheats to try and improve sales in the short term.  It is what it is and they are doing a very good job of making themselves irrelevant.

 wonder how Claremont's return to the X-Men would have
fared had he taken over the reins of an in-continuity X-
Title, rather than a new title that fans might perceive as
not being the "real" X-Men.

................

I think part of the problem with "Forever" was that it wasn't in-continuity and Claremont went hog wild.  He could do whatever he wanted and may have gone overboard. 

I know there is not a chance in hell of it happening, but, if the creative team of JB/Claremont as co-plotters, JB on pencils and Terry on inks, I'm sure the hype would be HUGE and it would sell like hotcakes.

BTW, I don't blame them for not re-teaming.  The pressure would be too much.